Kingdom of Elymais Chronology

[Joe Sermarini]

I have been sitting on a couple dozen Elymais drachm because I am uncertain how to date them.  The following Celator articles introduced some significant changes: 

Bell, Benjamin R., "New Inscription Alters Elymais Type Chronology", The Celator, v. 16, no. 4 (Apr 2002), pp. 38-39, 50 and Bell, Benjamin R., "A New Model for Elymaean Royal Chronology", The Celator, v. 16, no. 5 (May 2002), pp. 34-39, 50, 59.

http://parthia.com does not use the new Bell chronology.
http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/elymais/elymais.html does use the new Bell chronology.

If you compare the dates of reigns they are MUCH different. 

What do our experts here think? 

[Howard Cole]

Hi Joe,

I am still using the older chronology and not Bell's.  The reason why is that the older references, de Morgan and Alram (which Sear also uses since he used de Morgan as his primary source for the Elymais coins) use the older chronology.  Bell is not as widely accepted yet by collectors.  Bell does have some very good arguments for the new chronology and I do feel that in the long run, with a little more research and a major reference published use it, it will be more widely accepted.  (I wish I could find my copy of the Celator that has the article in it, so that I can post Bell's argument for revising the chronology, but it is one of the many boxes of magazines in the back room.)

Now it is up to you how you date the coins.  If I was selling to collectors, I would date them to the old chronology, since that is what all of the references for Elymais coins use.  If I want to be more forward thinking, I would use the Bell chronology.

[tkmallon]

Dear Joe and Howard:

Bell's chronology stems from a few tetradrachms discovered/sold in 1999, 2001 and 2002 of the later 'Kamnakires V' type (but stylistically a bit different), with the legend WRWD MALKA -- Orodes, King.  He's equating these (and the smaller, tiared bronzes) with the Parthian king Orodes II (c. 57 - 38 BC).   This moves the dating of the tets about 20 years earlier and the dating of the smaller AE close to 100 years earlier. Also the Phraates AE (his [alleged] Parthian king Phraates IV), again about 100 years earlier.  The dated drachm Alram 464 (in essence same design as the later tets), whether 267 or 277, and/or whether ME or SE, still falls (almost...) within the reign of Orodes II, with a spread of 66 to 35 BC.

Do I believe the earlier AE dating?  Well, it's certainly possible and, until I see something more substantial, will use it.

Do I believe the Elymaens were using the "Macedonian Era" instead of the Seleucid Era?  Not really.  But it's only a 20-year or so difference.  Since Bell wrote his article, at least half a dozen new dated coins have shown up.  And, as far as I know, no one has put together anything worthwhile.  The real question: Is there a continuous coinage in the 1st - 2nd century CE or is there a 60, 80, 100 year break (Bell's "period of direct Parthian administration")?  Don't know.

On my site, I am going to re-date the silver coinage using the Seleucid Era.

tom

[Joe Sermarini]

Do I believe the Elymaens were using the "Macedonian Era" instead of the Seleucid Era? Not really. But it's only a 20-year or so difference. Since Bell wrote his article, at least half a dozen new dated coins have shown up. And, as far as I know, no one has put together anything worthwhile. The real question: Is there a continuous coinage in the 1st - 2nd century CE or is there a 60, 80, 100 year break (Bell's "period of direct Parthian administration")? Don't know.

On my site, I am going to re-date the silver coinage using the Seleucid Era.

tom

Do you have a list of rulers and dates of reign that you are using now?  If so, could you cut and paste it here?  Thanks, Joe

[tkmallon]

Dear Joe:

A list of rulers for the small bronze? If you use Ed Dobbins' breakdown, it's like this:

"Orodes I" - Bust left wearing tiara w/anchor
"Phraates" - Bust left wearing tiara w/dotted crescent and facing bust wearing tiara w/dotted crescents
"Orodes II" - Facing bust wearing plain tiara or crested tiara; facing bust wearing diadem; hair in topknot
"Kamnaskires-Orodes III" - Facing bust wearing diadem; hair in topknot and lateral bunches

Nutshell: there are tiaras in the Parthian series up to and including s39 drachms (so-called Phraates III) now dated circa 60 BC.  The tiara disappears until the s67 facing bust drachms, tentatively dated to circa 51 AD and/or s72 tetradrachms and drachms, tentatively dated circa 80 AD, if Seleucid Era dating applies (still questionable for these particular coins IMHO).  This is mirrored in the Persis series: the last early tiared drachms now Darev II (circa 1st century BC) until the coins of Napad (circa 2nd half of 1st century AD).  There is a tiared tetradrachm in the Characene series, of Meredates, but dated 142 AD.

So, does the Elymaid series imitate the s33, s31, s34, s37, s39 tiared Parthian types, and come directly after, say 50BC (Bell) -- or does it imitate the resurgent series, circa 50 AD (Le Rider, etc.)?  Or is there little connection?  To be honest, the "Orodes I" types could imitate the coins now attributed to Vologases IV or Osroes II and be from the late 2nd century -- 250 years later then Bell's chronology.

Maybe this wide dating is best for now:

"Orodes I" - circa 50 BC - 100 AD
"Phraates" - circa 30 BC - 120 AD
"Orodes II" - circa 1 BC - 150 AD
"Kamnaskires-Orodes III" - circa 30 AD - 180 AD
Later types - circa 50 AD - 200 AD

tom

[Howard Cole]

As you can see in Tom's list there is a lot of uncertainty in the chronology of the Elymais rulers.  Heck, we not even sure who they all were or their names.  So, I still stay with the chronology and names in the order published references.